Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Comparison of Dewey and Library of Congress subject classification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The last discussion ended in a no consensus and WP:TRAINWRECK. New arguments that have appeared are that there isn't any significant in depth secondary coverage of this topic or scope. Logoshimpo (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Here is the previous discussion that nominator is referring to. Moritoriko (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep as a topic, but the article needs to be greatly expanded. The topic of a comparison between DDC and LCC is very common in the field of library science. A quick search through TWL got me this paper that compares teaching both systems, this paper (abstract only) that compares both systems in the context of African literature, another article comparing them in the context of movies, this paper (abstract only) compares them from a technical context that I am not equipped to understand fully, another very old article (first page only) about classification systems, a treatment of speech in three catalogue systems (first page only), and finally a doctoral thesis about the preference between the systems. I think there is a great amount that can be added to this article so the page itself is a keep. All articles listed here can be found in full through TWL. Moritoriko (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources found by Moritoriko above look promising at a first glance, and they might be able to be used to write an article about a comparison between DDC and LOC (I'm not 100% convinced that such an article is needed instead of putting this information on the main pages themselves, but that's a separate issue, and I'm probably fairly ambivalent about it overall). But, the article that was nominated isn't that article. Despite the name, this is merely a conversion from DDC number to LOC number, and nothing else. So if you want to write an article about an actual comparison, I'd say go right ahead, but in that case, this one should still be deleted first to make way for the new one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The reason why this article should exist, separate from smaller sections on their respective pages, is because they are the two largest systems in use in the US (and maybe the world?) and they are often compared as you can see in most of the sources. Delete votes should be reserved for when the article subject cannot be reasonably turned into an article, despite what the current content is. Delete per TNT is for when even the history of the page is so bad that it should be wiped from the site and that is not the case here, I hope you would agree. Moritoriko (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm pretty ambivalent on whether to make your proposal a separate article or include it at the main pages; either way is probably fine. However, this article, as it stands, should still be deleted, because the topic of the article, as it stands (and always has stood), isn't notable. That the title appears to represent a notable topic is irrelevant here, because the current article is mis-titled. If you want to go step-by-step here, what should really happen is that this article should be renamed to something like "Table of conversions of Dewey Decimal numbers to Library of Congress numbers" (or whatever), then it should get deleted, and anyone would be free to write a proper comparison article in the mean time. But that's just extra hassle, and you probably wouldn't be bothering to advocate keeping in in that case. TNT absolutely does apply, because there's nothing salvageable here, and what you're proposing is essentially completely unrelated. Let's just delete what's here, and then a new article can be written instead (either at the exact same name, or a slightly different one, or content can be added to the main articles, or whatever). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your recommendation goes against the guideline to make a determination based on an article's potential, rather than its current status. If the topic is worth bringing back at a later date, then it should be retained until it can be improved. @Moritoriko just found the tip of potential sources; this topic covers a main principle of librarianship and is covered in many books and scholarly articles. In addition, this information is taught to many college freshmen as part of their orientation to the campus library. Rublamb (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I'm pretty ambivalent on whether to make your proposal a separate article or include it at the main pages; either way is probably fine. However, this article, as it stands, should still be deleted, because the topic of the article, as it stands (and always has stood), isn't notable. That the title appears to represent a notable topic is irrelevant here, because the current article is mis-titled. If you want to go step-by-step here, what should really happen is that this article should be renamed to something like "Table of conversions of Dewey Decimal numbers to Library of Congress numbers" (or whatever), then it should get deleted, and anyone would be free to write a proper comparison article in the mean time. But that's just extra hassle, and you probably wouldn't be bothering to advocate keeping in in that case. TNT absolutely does apply, because there's nothing salvageable here, and what you're proposing is essentially completely unrelated. Let's just delete what's here, and then a new article can be written instead (either at the exact same name, or a slightly different one, or content can be added to the main articles, or whatever). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The reason why this article should exist, separate from smaller sections on their respective pages, is because they are the two largest systems in use in the US (and maybe the world?) and they are often compared as you can see in most of the sources. Delete votes should be reserved for when the article subject cannot be reasonably turned into an article, despite what the current content is. Delete per TNT is for when even the history of the page is so bad that it should be wiped from the site and that is not the case here, I hope you would agree. Moritoriko (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: Per WP:HEY. I expanded the lede, added sources, and converted the list of sources into inline citations. There are now numerous reliable sources that discuss the comparison of the two classification systems, meeting the notability requirement for a stand-alone list article. (the main sources for the table are listed in the paragraph before the table). I am confident there are more sources in professional journals and books, meaning this article can continue to be improved. 01:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Rublamb (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: This topic is notable and meets WP:N and I see many secondary sources. It needs cleanup and as suggested it can be improved. Asteramellus (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)